3.5 years or 1260 years

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Question does the 1260days correlate with Daniels 70weeks?

If it doesn't then I could see it more.

If the time,times and half a time are representative of half of Daniels 70th week, it would be inconsistent to break it into a half being 1260years.

The Seventy Weeks is a particular prophetic time period. The 1260 Days is a different prophetic time period. They do not include one another. In other words, the 1260 days is not a part of or section of the seventy weeks.

[good samaritan]

Maybe this is where I am getting lost

[coksiw]

I hope is doing well too.

Esaias is absolutely correct that the word means week of days. A word means what it means by context and what the original readers would have understood at first. You can't take it out and say "it means 7, nothing else!"

Since, it is apocalyptic, it is also possible the original readers had the ultimate meaning hidden to them as well, however, at first the readers would have understood it as weeks of day, in their literal sense, and then after more reading, would have realized there is a non-literal symbolic meaning to it because of the impossibility of some of the things mentioned in regard to that timeline.

The only way in the context I can see someone would figure out in this case that this prophecy of Dan 9 means years, not days, is by the context as well:

* The city was going to be rebuilt: ...To restore and build Jerusalem...Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. .... No way that Jerusalem and the Temple were going to be rebuilt that quick. The original readers could have figured it out that those weeks were symbolic.

* The day-to-years principle is always in the context of judgment for the sins of the recipient of the judgments. This point actually could cut both ways.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

* The day-to-years principle is always in the context of judgment for the sins of the recipient of the judgments. This point actually could cut both ways.

Is it? The little horn of Daniel 7 was to continue to oppress the holy people for a time, times, and dividing of a time. There was no mention or indication of this being a judgment upon the holy people for sins. The same can be said for the sea-beast's persecution of the saints in Revelation for 1260 days or 42 months or time, times, and half a time.

Or are you saying the only locations where the Year-Day Principle is explicitly stated is in the context of judgment (the forty years wandering in the wilderness, Ezekiel's tow time statements for Israel and Jerusalem, for example)?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is it? The little horn of Daniel 7 was to continue to oppress the holy people for a time, times, and dividing of a time. There was no mention or indication of this being a judgment upon the holy people for sins. The same can be said for the sea-beast's persecution of the saints in Revelation for 1260 days or 42 months or time, times, and half a time.

Or are you saying the only locations where the Year-Day Principle is explicitly stated is in the context of judgment (the forty years wandering in the wilderness, Ezekiel's tow time statements for Israel and Jerusalem, for example)?

^ that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

^ that.

OK, I understand. so then perhaps we could say that whenever the Year-Day Principle is used (not necessarily stated) that it signifies a temporal limit indicating judgment. So that for example the beast's persecutions for 1260 "days" is a delimited time imposed by God as part of His judgments concerning the beast? In fact, the more I think about it, the more it looks like the beast's reign of terror for 1260 days isn't just limited to "persecution of the saints", although was a prominent feature of the prophesied time period. But rather the beast's reign was in fact itself a judgment of sorts against all those willing to be carried away by the beast (those who didn't have a love of the truth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life), that is, they would suffer the tyranny and rule of a beast sent for judgment against the wicked and those who loved unrighteousness. Since said beast was a tyranny of evil, it would follow as a matter of course that it would persecute the saints, BUT it didn't come into existence simply to be a persecuting power.

The Romans for example were a persecuting power against the saints, but they didn't come into existence specifically and only for that purpose. The world got the government it deserved, in other words. As for the saints, in the world we will have tribulation (persecution and trouble) because the world hates God and therefore will hate His people as a natural by-product. But that doesn't mean the world powers are raised up by God to harass His own people, but for other primary purposes.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

OK, I understand. so then perhaps we could say that whenever the Year-Day Principle is used (not necessarily stated) that it signifies a temporal limit indicating judgment. So that for example the beast's persecutions for 1260 "days" is a delimited time imposed by God as part of His judgments concerning the beast? In fact, the more I think about it, the more it looks like the beast's reign of terror for 1260 days isn't just limited to "persecution of the saints", although was a prominent feature of the prophesied time period. But rather the beast's reign was in fact itself a judgment of sorts against all those willing to be carried away by the beast (those who didn't have a love of the truth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life), that is, they would suffer the tyranny and rule of a beast sent for judgment against the wicked and those who loved unrighteousness. Since said beast was a tyranny of evil, it would follow as a matter of course that it would persecute the saints, BUT it didn't come into existence simply to be a persecuting power.

The Romans for example were a persecuting power against the saints, but they didn't come into existence specifically and only for that purpose. The world got the government it deserved, in other words. As for the saints, in the world we will have tribulation (persecution and trouble) because the world hates God and therefore will hate His people as a natural by-product. But that doesn't mean the world powers are raised up by God to harass His own people, but for other primary purposes.

Interesting thought.

What do you think about the 2300 in Daniel 8:13? Epiphanes did his persecution for roughly that amount of time, making that interpretation of days literal days. If you believe they are literal days, what criteria do you use? the "mornings and evenings"?


On a different, but similar note, I read (skimming) a couple of Joel Richardson books. Inspire on his possibility of the Islamic Caliphate being the center, not the Romans, I came with these interpretation ideas for Revelation 13 and 17 regarding the 7 headed beast (Joel says the seventh is the Islamic Caliphate and the eighth is the revival, which doesn't make sense to me)

**Five have fallen**. The original readers would relate to specific kingdoms that have had an important impact on God's people and the Middle East: the Egyptian (the house of bondage, Ex 20:2), Assyrian (exalted herself against God, Isa 37:23), Babylonian (the hammer of the whole earth, Jer 50:23), Medo-Persian (the ones that persecuted the Jews, Esther), and Grecian empire (the little horn that spoke blasphemes and rose against the people of God, Daniel 8).

**One is**. The Roman empire. It was the current context of the readers, and had the Middle East and Judea under control.

**The other has not yet...must continue a short time**. The Sasanian empire. This empire was mainly away east from the Middle East, but around the 7th century, they marched towards the west, occupied the Middle East, Egypt, and even part of Asia Minor (where the original readers of Revelation were). During the occupation, they slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians, and destroyed churches in Jerusalem. The occupation only lasted 20 years, because the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reconquered the region.

**The beast, the eighth king, of the seven**. We are told the beast was like a leopard, had feet like a bear, a mouth like a lion. That is an allusion to Daniel's vision in chapter 7, and are the Grecian, Medo-Persian, and Babylonian empires respectively. For that reason, the beast was also going to be an eighth king which comes out of the previous seven. The beast was going to resemble those empires geographically, and in character or effect. The beast was, and is not, and will be. So the beast was, because it resembles those past empires, the beast is not, because at the time of the book of Revelation, there was no empire like those; Rome didn't go that far east, the Parthians and the Sasanians didn't go that far west, either. Rome was the empire at the time, so Rome *is*; therefore, it cannot be the beast that *is not*. What empire came next that dominated much of the Grecian, Medo-Persian, and Babylonian territories, and was crushing the people of God? Here is an idea: The Islamic Caliphate starting since 632 AD with Rashidun. If that's the case, this kingdom was going to expand, and crush, and eventually morph into a ten kings alliance (the 10 horns), and become the beast that will be destroyed at the return of Christ. The last Islamic Caliphate ended in 1922. That is, according to the historians determination of beginning and end, lasted 1290 years. At this moment, Islamic nations are together larger than the previous Islamic Caliphates.

**One of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed**. The text that follows those details says "And all the world marveled and followed the beast," and the thing they marveled about was its military power saying "Who is able to make war with him?" What is this head that was mortally wounded but it is seen as healed, and how does it relate with a great military power people marvel about? The beast is like a leopard as a whole, but with feet like bear and mouth like lion. Since the predominant appearance is the leopard, I believe it is a special reference to the Grecian empire and its military power. The Grecian empire has unique descriptions in Daniel: "shall rule over all the earth" (Dan 2:39), "dominion was given to it" (Dan 7:6), "a male goat" that "came from the west" a great speed "across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground", speaking of its rapid military success (Daniel 8:5). But the most notorious thing about the Grecian empire is what later comes out of it: a very wicked king. It says that "And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious *Land*," (v9) and "He even exalted *himself* as high as the Prince of the host." (v11) This is a reference to a king coming out of this Grecian empire: "And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise, Having fierce features." (v23) That was fulfilled in part by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but it is also a reference to the last beast because the passage places the fulfillment in the last-days: "Therefore seal up the vision, For *it refers* to many days *in the future*." (v26) The Grecian empire not only conquered with great military power, but also attempted to impose their language, culture, and religion in the Middle East as displayed by the very things Antiochus IV Epiphanes did. Therefore, my conclusion is that the last beast kingdom in Relevation 13 and 17 will have a significant resemblance to the military success and crushing character of the Grecian empire, causing the admiration of world as they see their success like the Grecian empire of ancient times. To some extent, the Islamic Caliphates did resemble the Grecian crushing character for 1290 years, having a significant military success and imposing new language, culture, and religion where it went, but its future revival (the 10 horns), will likely be more successful causing the worship and admiration of many.

Thoughts?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I hope is doing well too.

Esaias is absolutely correct that the word means week of days. A word means what it means by context and what the original readers would have understood at first. You can't take it out and say "it means 7, nothing else!"

Since, it is apocalyptic, it is also possible the original readers had the ultimate meaning hidden to them as well, however, at first the readers would have understood it as weeks of day, in their literal sense, and then after more reading, would have realized there is a non-literal symbolic meaning to it because of the impossibility of some of the things mentioned in regard to that timeline.

The only way in the context I can see someone would figure out in this case that this prophecy of Dan 9 means years, not days, is by the context as well:

* The city was going to be rebuilt: ...To restore and build Jerusalem...Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. .... No way that Jerusalem and the Temple were going to be rebuilt that quick. The original readers could have figured it out that those weeks were symbolic.

* The day-to-years principle is always in the context of judgment for the sins of the recipient of the judgments. This point actually could cut both ways.

Hi all. Thanks for the thought s.

But it does mean seven....
Original: שׁבעה שׁבע שׁבוּע

Transliteration: shâbûa‛ shâbûa‛ shebû‛âh

Phonetic: shaw-boo'-ah

BDB Definition:

seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week
period of seven days, a week
Feast of Weeks
heptad, seven (of years)

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hi all. Thanks for the thought s.

But it does mean seven....
Original: שׁבעה שׁבע שׁבוּע

Transliteration: shâbûa‛ shâbûa‛ shebû‛âh

Phonetic: shaw-boo'-ah

BDB Definition:

seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week
period of seven days, a week
Feast of Weeks
heptad, seven (of years)

Find one instance in the Bible outside Daniel or one instance outside the Bible from a text that it is older than BC, where that word refers to seven years and I will change my mind.

[Amanah]

Both arguments are correct, but they're emphasizing different aspects of the word's meaning.

The first argument is correct that the word "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) is related to the number seven. In Hebrew, the word is derived from the root "שׁבע" (shâba‛), which means "seven".

The second argument is also correct that the word "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) typically refers to a week, which is a period of seven days. In the context of the Old Testament, the word is often used to describe a week of days, as seen in the examples provided.

So, the word "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) has a dual meaning:

- It's related to the number seven.
- It typically refers to a week, which is a period of seven days.

In the context of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy, the word "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) is used to describe a period of seventy weeks, which is understood to represent seventy weeks of years, rather than literal days. This interpretation is based on the context and the Year-Day Principle, as mentioned in the second argument.

~meta

After conducting a thorough search, I found no instances in scripture or outside of scripture where "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) is translated simply as "7" outside of Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27).

In all other instances, "שׁבעה" (shâbûa‛) is translated as "week" or "weeks", emphasizing the concept of a seven-day period. The word's connection to the number seven is evident, but it's not directly translated as "7" except in Daniel's prophecy, where it's understood to represent a period of seventy weeks of years.

~meta